Posts Tagged ‘Stalin’

Democrats smell blood, and they sent out Rep. John Lewis – who boycotted the Trump Inauguration and said that Trump wasn’t a “legitimate” president on account that he’s not a Democrat – to call for the Republicans to rise above politics to get to the bottom of what Gen. Flynn said to the Russian ambassador and who had authorized Flynn to have that talk.

The fool couldn’t have been more wrong. And the wicked fool CONTINUES to be more wrong than any human being has ever been. It is frankly astonishing to watch this demonic dumbass deliver Armageddon one piece of hell at a time.

I heard a little snippet about the arrogance and naivety of FDR and what a complete, abject fool that Joseph Stalin made of a president so adored by Democrats. I actually had a hard time believing it was true. I mean, how could any man be so arrogant, so stupid? Anyway, I looked up a couple of phrases I recalled and found this straight from the Central Intelligence Agency writing based on actual recorded statements from one Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

I want you to read this CIA article with me and replace in your mind the names “Franklin Delano Roosevelt” with “Barack Hussein Obama” and replace the name “Joseph Stalin” with “Ayatollah”; when you see “Bolshevik dictatorship” read it as “Islamic dictatorship” and when you see “US-Soviet relations” read it as “US-Iranian relations”:

In recent years, the statesmanship of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in particular his handling of Soviet affairs, has come under attack in historical studies. The situation has reached such a pass that even a psychiatrist who examined FDR’s medical records has opined that toward the end of World War II the US President ceded the better part of Eastern Europe to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin because he was “gripped by clinical depression.1”

Certainly the President’s moves can be questioned, but questionable policy can be founded on factors other than low spirits—which, in point of fact, were not generally observed in FDR at the time. Rather, the operant factors were: the President’s supreme confidence in his own powers of persuasion, his profound ignorance of the Bolshevik dictatorship, his projection of humane motives onto his Soviet counterpart, his determined resistance to contradictory evidence and advice, and his wishful thinking based on geopolitical designs—mindsets supported and reinforced by his appointed advisors. Taken together, these factors produced a false view of US-Soviet relations and inspired policy that had only superficial contact with reality. As an instance in point, they induced the President of the United States to do the unthinkable: walk into a surveillance trap, not once, but twice, and willingly.

Normally, in order to avoid the possibility of intelligence leaks and personal embarrassment, as well as to ensure physical safety, traveling US presidents stay in their own country’s embassies or other diplomatic buildings, whose tables and walls have been swept by instruments able to discover listening devices. But when Roosevelt went abroad to meet Stalin, he wanted very badly to please him, holding him to be a key figure in the postwar division of powers, and so did not insist on such accommodations. Consequently, at the conference in Teheran (November 1943) and again at Yalta (February 1945), he stayed in Soviet quarters and was bugged like no other American president in history.

FDR’s Acquaintance With Bugs

Roosevelt was no stranger to technical surveillance. In 1939, piqued by an incident in which he believed that the press had deliberately misquoted him, he had a secret recording system installed in the White House as a means of self-protection. Since German tape-recording technology had not yet found its way to America, something had to be invented. FDR’s assistants took the problem to David Sarnoff of the Radio Corporation of America. In June 1940, Sarnoff personally presented the President with a “continuous-film recording machine” that made use of motion-picture sound film. Set in a wire cage in a room beneath the Oval Office, the device was activated either by the President using a switch inside his desk drawer or by his technician down below throwing a switch on the machine itself. A single microphone poked out through a lamp on FDR’s desk.

Between 23 August and 8 November, 1939, during his campaign for an unprecedented third term, the President recorded fourteen of twenty-one press conferences held in his office, plus a number of private conversations, the latter possibly by mistake. It seems that he never used the system to entrap anyone, and no one knows why he stopped it. Relatively innocent by today’s standards of invasion, it nevertheless demonstrates that the President was acquainted with listening devices before his conferences with Stalin.2

In the very year of the Teheran conference, he was reminded of hidden microphones when watching Mission to Moscow, a movie based on a book of that title by Joseph E. Davies, America’s second Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.3 Produced in 1943 with the President’s blessing, possibly even at his explicit request, this blatant piece of propaganda was designed to drum up public enthusiasm for a political shotgun wedding: It colored Stalin as a simple, practical man with whom one could do business; rhapsodized about Soviet construction, government, and politics; and justified the Soviet blood purges, the Moscow show trials, and Stalin’s two-year pact with Hitler, which had ended when Hitler turned the tables on Stalin and invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941.

Attempting to forestall any criticism of the Soviet system, Davies even contrived to make a brief for bugging. In one scene, set in the American Embassy in Moscow, the Ambassador’s assistants warn him of listening devices, but he rebukes them severely:

I say nothing outside the Kremlin that I wouldn’t say to Stalin’s face. Do you? . . . We’re here in a sense as guests of the Soviet government, and I’m going to believe they trust the United States as a friend until they prove otherwise. Is that clear?

When the assistant persists that still, after all, there may be microphones, Davies, played with aplomb by FDR’s favorite actor, Walter Huston, cuts him off: “Then let ’em hear! We’ll be friends that much faster!”4

This cinematic scene was based on an actual incident. In 1937, when a bug was discovered directly over the Ambassador’s desk at the US Embassy in Moscow, the real Davies laughed it off. If the Soviets wanted to listen in, he told his incredulous staff—which included George Kennan, Charles Bohlen, and other skilled State Department diplomats—they would only obtain proof of America’s sincere desire to cooperate with them.5

FDR strongly approved of the film. In his assessment of Soviet politics, he was much closer to Davies, his second Ambassador, than to his first, William C. Bullitt.6 Contrary to Davies, Bullitt never missed an opportunity to warn FDR of Stalin’s treachery. In a typical exchange, Roosevelt responded:

Bill, I don’t dispute your facts; they are accurate. I don’t dispute the logic of your reasoning. I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he’s not and that he doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.7

FDR’s hunch, Hopkins’ glowing reports on Stalin, and Davies’ boundless trust in the Soviet regime were the President’s counters to the admitted facts about Hitler’s recent ally, history’s greatest mass-murderer, and the sole ruler of a party and state dedicated to worldwide communism.8

[…]

And it is amply footnoted and documented, with said footnotes for the above passage here:

4. David Culbert, ed., Mission to Moscow [Warner Brothers Screenplay] (Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1980), pp. 109-110. When the film was shown to the Soviet public, all the scenes about bugging were cut.

6. Bullitt served as US Ambassador to the USSR from 1933-1936, Davies from 1936-1938.

7. William C. Bullitt, “How We Won the War and Lost the Peace,” Life, 30 August 1948, p. 94.

8. Hopkins described the 5’ 3” Stalin as “an austere, rugged, determined figure in boots . . . built close to the ground, like a football coach’s dream of a tackle”—see his article, “The Inside Story of My Meeting with Stalin,” in American Magazine (Springfield, Ohio), No. 132, December 1941, pp. 14-15; Davies once said that the Bolshevik word of honor was “as safe as the Bible,” according to William C. Bullitt, citing the Daily Worker of 25 and 28 February 1942, in The Great Globe Itself (New York, NY: Scribner’s Sons, 1946), pp. 22, 255, 256.

I don’t think it’s coincidental that FDR revealed what an abject fool that he was in Tehran, the capital of Iran.

Because of the incredible, stunning arrogance, foolishness, willingness to compromise with pure evil, and the naivety that FDR believed he could actually negotiate with pure evil and win the upper hand in his dealings, TENS OF MILLIONS OF HUMAN BEINGS WERE SEIZED BY THE MOST DEPRAVED, THE MOST WICKED, THE MOST EVIL POLITICAL SYSTEM AND WORLDVIEW IN THE HISTORY OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt had died and was already burning in hell and as the Bible points out, “The dead know nothing,” but Joseph Stalin almost immediately after the end of World War II proved that FDR was the worst and most unmitigated fool in the history of the world by seizing ALL of Eastern Europe and the tens of millions of souls that he would crush. And the United States was thrust into the costliest war in the history of planet earth – the Cold War – because of the abject moral idiocy of one man, FDR. The Korean War, the Vietnam War, and numerous other conflagrations stemmed from FDR’s complete moral idiocy and his refusal to understand the nature of evil and the fact that you can’t appease a Stalin any more than you can appease a cockroach.

And Barack Hussein Obama, a man even MORE arrogant, more foolish, more willing to compromise with pure evil, and more stunningly naïve in his belief that he could negotiate with pure evil and someone win the upper hand in his negotiations because of his malignant narcissistic belief in his own superiority, just guaranteed that America would face World War III and the Armageddon prophesied in the Holy Bible that he has so much naked contempt for.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told supporters Saturday that U.S. policies in the region were “180 degrees” opposed to Iran’s. The speech in a Tehran mosque was punctuated by chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

“Even after this deal our policy toward the arrogant U.S. will not change,” Khamenei said.

Who would trust such a man? Only the greatest and worst fools who ever lived. Only Obama. Only John Kerry. Only Hillary Clinton. Only the Democrat Party. History has proven time and again that no one else and no other Party would be so vile, would be so arrogant, would be so evil, to appease and compromise with evil the way Democrats do.

History has a way of repeating itself. And whenever Democrats are able to affect history, you can COUNT on the fact that that history will be GODAWFUL. And that millions of people will miserably perish as a result of that history.

In January 1950, American Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave an important speech to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. He vowed that the United States would always be the best ally for those in Asia who sought “their own national independence,” arguing that anyone who sought aid from the USSR would end up dominated by the totalitarian Soviets. During the same speech, however, Acheson made a fateful announcement. The United States had a vital “defensive perimeter,” he said, a line that the Soviets could never cross without threatening America’s core national security interests. In the Pacific, Acheson said, that line ran from the Aleutian Islands off Alaska to Japan, through the Ryukyu Islands between Japan and Taiwan, and south to the Philippines. Conspicuously left outside the American “defensive perimeter”: Korea.

It’s not clear that Acheson meant to send a signal to Moscow that the United States wouldn’t fight to preserve Rhee’s government in South Korea, but that’s exactly what Soviet dictator Josef Stalin interpreted Acheson’s remarks to mean.

– and American weakness after we had built the most powerful military in the history of the world because of the mistakes of the last fool Democrat president. The once all-powerful United States became WEAK under Democrat turd Truman. Then we had Vietnam – otherwise known as Democrat LBJ’s War. That was a war fought so stupidly and in such a self-defeating manner that no matter how many military victories the American serviceman won, he could not win a war that was lost by the Democrat Party politically.

Democrats ultimately would turn on their own damn war and pulled out like the cowards they are to murder millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians. Democrats just walked away. The same way they have walked away since from their own damn previous votes to oppose wars they voted for. Millions perished because of Democrats’ – and therefore America’s – betrayal and abandonment. What is ironically funny is that LBJ saw his own party becoming communist-possessed if not demon-possessed from within as this caught-on-tape quote reveals:

What was morally cancerous within the Democrat Party in 1965 is far, FAR more evil and more vile now. We’ve got a freaking communist turd occupying the White House itself, now. Even LBJ saw it coming.

If you were to consider actual history and consider the wars that Democrats have gotten us into, the costs and the causalities, and then compare their grim toll to the wars that Republicans have gotten us into, it is frankly beyond OBSCENE how bloody Democrat presidencies have been. Democrats leave us wildly unprepared for war because it is their nature to spend billions – and now trillions – on anything and everything but the ONLY THING (yes, the MILITARY) that the Constitution DEMANDS the federal government spend money on. They are pathological in their projection of weakness which encourages and emboldens our enemies to do things that will ultimately goad us into a war we wouldn’t have had to fight if we had been strong and powerful. Then, even if we manage to win these wars, we disarm, nod off to sleep again, and repeat the cycle when Democrats are in power. These are things called “facts.”

The US Senate now has sixty days to examine the Iran nuclear deal Obama “negotiated” – which will put it right smack dab in the middle of the next prophetic blood moon cycle that stands as a grim prophetic harbinger to Israel (please see here and here for the articles I’ve written about the Blood Moons). The next Blood Moon will reach its zenith on September 28, 2015. God is warning Israel, God is warning Christians, that Barack Obama is the very worst kind of wicked fool that there is; but because of the mystery of lawlessness – prophesied in the Bible for the last days – we live in a bizarre, apocalyptic world in which evil is transcendent and the righteous can only sit in stunned dismay as they can do nothing to stop it. As the Bible describes it, the mystery or secret power of lawlessness has been at work all along, but it was being held back, restrained by God through His Spirit or through His Church. But God told us that in the last days “perilous times would come” as God would begin to remove that restraint on evil so that evil would triumph. And that ascendancy of evil would be at its zenith as the world embraces and worships a politician who will impose the ultimate form of socialist, totalitarian government onto the world in place of God.

I just want to point out that we have seen the ultimate satanic trifecta in the history of the world in the last three weeks because of Barack Obama and because of the Democrat Party which has become the most evil the most monstrous genocidal regime, the most unholy government in the history of the planet.

Democrats – and I mean every single Democrat will one day stand before a just and holy God as flames of white-hot wrath billow out of His chariot throne as He demands of them, “WHY did you murder My babies?” – are personally and individually responsible for the genocidal murder of more than sixty million innocent human beings just in the United States (the Party of Wickedness has also transported and sanctified the murder of hundreds of millions of more babies around the world). Psalm 139 is a proof of the fact that it was GOD who formed that life in the womb that Democrats in their arrogant spirit of hate for humanity callously and brutally murder:

“You made all the delicate, inner parts of my body and knit me together in my mother’s womb. Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvelous–how well I know it. You watched me as I was being formed in utter seclusion, as I was woven together in the dark of the womb. You saw me before I was born. Every day of my life was recorded in Your book. Every moment was laid out before a single day had passed.” — Psalm 139:13-16

We have the greatest indictment of the moral criminality of Democrats at all in the Person of Jesus. A teenage girl was pregnant and in a dire state because of her pregnancy. And because of the Democrat Party she aborted her baby. And one day Jesus will tell Democrats, “I never knew you, because you viciously tortured and murdered Me in the womb. Like millions of other babies, I never lived to fulfill the mission that God gave Me to save you from your sins. I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness!”

If these babies aren’t human, then how the hell can they possibly have human body parts??? That are being sold with the callousness of produce???

I have pointed this fact out before: Science is actually crystal clear on what abortion kills: we have a rigorous system called “taxonomy” that classifies every single living thing. If it is biological, it has a classification. And from the very moment of conception when a man and a woman first produce a child, that zygote in the womb is classified as follows: Kingdom-Animal, Phylum-Chordata, Class-Mammalia, Order-Primate, Family-Hominid, Genus-Homo and Species-Sapiens. It is classified as homo-sapiens, just as you and I are classified as homo-sapiens. Logic and philosophy are just as clear: that tiny little baby in the womb is human by virtue of her parents, she is a being by virtue of the fact that she exists: she is a human being. The Word of God, religion, science, philosophy and logic all intersect here to uphold the sanctity of innocent human life in the womb. But in these last days we are no longer a society capable of caring about such things. Abortion is a grave moral evil; it is the genocide of the very most innocent of human life in the very place where it ought to be the very safest: in mommy’s womb.

Democrats snarl in their contempt for God and for everything that is decent and holy that they’re not murdering a “human being,” but merely a POTENTIAL human being. Well, you butchers, then THOSE HUMAN ORGANS YOU WERE JUST CAUGHT TRAFFICKING IN ARE MERELY “POTENTIAL HUMAN ORGANS” AND THEREFORE GOOD FOR NOTHING IN THIS ACTUAL WORLD. You are ACTUALLY murdering an actual human being.

Abortion is the vile, evil, callous, rabid hatred of human life. And every single one of the people who support it with their votes or their actions are nothing short of future citizens of hell.

And Planned Parenthood – a vile, demonic, satanic entity created by Democrats and supported by Democrats – that just got busted trafficking in the for-profit murder of babies and then harvesting their organs for resale much the way a slaughterhouse would do with herd animals – is also THE most racist organization in the history of the world, bar NONE.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Is the EXACT same organization that Democrats today vow to continue funding no matter how obviously and blatantly and demonically evil it is proven to be.

It is a FACT that Planned Parenthood CONTINUES to target black populations in their location of baby-murdering factories. It is a FACT that 6 out of 10 black babies are murdered by the Democrat Party. It is a FACT that black women are more than 5 times as likely as white women to have an abortion.

But the very mass murderers of blacks – Democrats – are demonically and hypocritically slandering everyone but themselves as they scream “black lives matter” when in actual fact they rabidly hate black lives more than any other people on the face of the earth, Ku Klux Klan – (an organization created as the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party after Democrats lost a vicious war they started to keep black people in slavery) – included.

The fact is that NO LIFE matters to Democrats. The Democrat Party is the Party of the Extermination of Human Life. Only the most wicked political party in the history of the world would have booed a statement like that. But that’s what Democrats did when one of their own said it.

Radical terrorist Muslims want to create a totalitarian sharia state in which they rule over everyone and everything in the name of Allah; Democrats want to create a totalitarian system in which they rule over everyone and everything based on their religion of godless secular humanism. Atheism is every bit as much as a religion as Islam (which has been correctly defined as a political system masquerading as a religion). The ends are identical; only the means to that end slightly differ. Or maybe you’d argue that liberalism is a religion masquerading as a political system.

Anyway, that was JUST exposed, bringing to light the full horror of sixty million abortions in the United States that the Democrat Party is ENTIRELY responsible for and the hateful and unconstitutional decision to legalize infanticide imposed by Democrats in 1973.

Then we had the pure, satanic evil that is the approval and celebration of homosexuality that came out of the Party Of Rabid Hate For God otherwise known as the Democrat Party.

The Word of God could not be more clear: as evil as anything we did before (even abortion), we reached our true absolute rock bottom when we stuck our national middle finger up at God and screamed, “Bring on Your wrath, God! We all deserve to burn in hell and we want what’s coming to us!”

This is a truly morally depraved man representing a truly morally depraved disgusting sex Party that worships perverted sodomy while despising the men and women who serve the nation Obama is killing.

It is this wicked man who made that wicked treaty with wicked Iran.

And now we have the abandonment of Israel, the Death-to-America desire, underlying this Satan-inspired deal. The ONLY reason America hasn’t already collapsed yet is that we have been Israel’s greatest ally in the world. That historic and sacred relationship has been broken by your Traitor-in-Chief.

Given the fact that Democrats have naked contempt for the Word of God and worship homosexual sodomy on an altar of murdered babies in spite of the crystal clear ordinances of God, there is no reason that they would have any less contempt for what the Bible says prophetically. But what it decreed 2,600 years ago is that in the last days, there would be an end-times confederation between Gog and Magog – otherwise known as Russia – and Persia – a.k.a. Iran – along with a host of nations that today are ALL Islamic states. And this coalition will attack Israel and ignite what will ultimately be known as Armageddon. This is described in Ezekiel 38 and 39 right after Ezekiel 37, which famously prophesied that Israel would become a nation once again literally from dead, dried-out bones. Which was fulfilled in May, 1948 whether godless liberals want to believe it or not. It is a miracle of divine foreknowledge that the PRECISE coalition that Ezekiel prophesied exists as we speak.

And Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat Party and Democrats have guaranteed that all of this will take place. Whether they believe it or not. And they will burn in hell for their unbelief and for their insanely wicked deeds.

The United Stats of America WILL fall as no other nation in the history of the world has EVER fallen. It will be a more devastating fall because we were once a nation that called upon the God whom we now have betrayed and reviled. Our collapse will be worse and more agonizing than any nation that has come before us. And we will deserve it because of Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s and Democrat voters’ demonic trifecta.

Here’s a few things that stand out: the most important ones mention the rights of “the people.”

4th Amendment: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated”

2nd Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

And you see, the same liberal big government worshipers who feel like they are justified in infringing on a right that shall not be infringed will ultimately feel every scintilla as justified in violating rights that shall not be violated.

The right to vote is FAR more dangerous than the right for law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. And you are a moral idiot to the extreme not to understand that.

Moral idiots are far worse and far more dangerous than intellectual idiots. Because moral idiots are people with dishonest minds and dishonest minds prefer lies to the truth. Moral idiots such as those who run our culture today devote their intelligence to advancing lies. And they are the first to justify extreme policies with the notion that the ends justify the means.

Let me point out that the very biggest moral idiots of all are the so-called “intellectuals” who dominate our universities and our political think tanks. Thomas Sowell interacted with George Orwell to produce this gem:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

And a lot of the people who are such beyond-belief fools are the very same people who continue to be for banning guns “despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them.” They are consistent only in that they are so consistently morally stupid.

The nature of the big government socialist left was, is and will always be fascism. And the nature of fascism has always been to deprive human dignity and freedom – starting with the right to self-defense.

Because herd animals shouldn’t have a right to defend themselves. We don’t want our hamburgers getting guns any more than fascists want their people to resist their policies (such as Hitler’s Final Solution, such as Stalin’s Collectivization, such as Mao’s Great Leap Forward).

Which is why they’re going after our guns first just like Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Castro and Pol Pot and Kim Il-sung did before they brought the Horror against unarmed and defenseless people. Considerably more than 100 million people were brutally murdered by leftist big government dictatorships during peacetime alone. And the one thing all these governmental philosophies had in common besides big government totalitarian control was the initial disarming of the people they were about to impose horror against. This is a fact of history.

What has the left done with the 2nd Amendment? First of all, they have defined the right as belonging only to a militia. Okay. Then the 4th Amendment (and other important amendments such as the First Amendment) needs to be only for militias, because the same amendment which says the right of the people to bear arms says the right of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. And if “the people” in the 2nd Amendment refers only to “militia,” then ALL of the rights accorded to the people only pertain for those belonging to a militia. Because a right recognized for “the people” either applies to “the people” or it doesn’t. And which is it? Which do you want? “The people” either refers to a militia or to the actual “people.” Just because the right to arms are also granted to well-organized militias does not in any way, shape or form abrogate the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms any more than the mention of the right of the press somehow abrogates the right of the people to freedom of speech and to peaceable assembly as guaranteed in the First Amendment.

Fascism and government tyranny has started with the confiscation of guns from the people, to disarm them in order to control them. Big government is ALWAYS about controlling people.

If you value ANYof the other rights of the Bill of Rights, then you’d damned well better protect the 2nd Amendment.

I keep telling anyone who will read me, over and over again: the beast is coming. And he most certainly is. And soon.

The thing you need to realize is that by the time he gets here, the Democrat Party will have given the once-great and mighty United States of America into his hands by disarming the people. And it will be Democrats who worship this ultimate big government leader and take his mark on their foreheads or their right hands as a sign of that worship.

Yeah, Neil. We CAN answer that question. We have a right to be able to protect ourselves with the same sorts of weapons that either predatory criminals or an even more predatory criminal thug government possess. Our founding fathers gave us that right, and our ancestors died to preserve that right for us. Here’s a question for YOU, though: can you answer to the hundreds of millions of families who saw their governments brutally murder their parents, their children, their brothers and sisters, their grandparents, their cousins, etc. etc., just why it was that they didn’t deserve the right to be able to defend themselves??? Can you explain why you believe government ought to have the right to slaughter us like farm animals by the hundreds of millions???

That’s my question.

Consider smoking. First the left forced restaurants to divide their buildings, airplanes, etc. into smoking and non-smoking sections. But the nature of the left is to keep taking, keep building more regulations with more penalites. Now you can’t smoke at all in any government place – whether the owner of that place likes it or not – and many people are not lawbreakers even for smoking in their own homes. If that isn’t bad enough, you’ve got liberals saying that now that the left has taken over and socialized health care, it is too expensive to give the smokers the Medicare and health services they paid into. And so they should die. And I mean literally be killed by denial of medical treatment.

You’re only one government regulation away from being treated like Hitler treated the Jews or Stalin treated the Ukrainians or Mao treated, well, pretty much all of his people.

I rather routinely call Obama the F-word. No, not that F-word (although the ability to resist doing so is dwindling); the other F-word: Fascist. Barack Obama is a fascist.

I have had quite a few liberals fixate on this word, and – while ignoring the rest of my arguments – proceed to give me a lecture about how my extremism undermines my positions and arguments (which they don’t bother to consider).

I’d like to respond to that. At length.

There are many who would argue that if a politician is not as rabid as Adolf Hitler, that one cannot use this label of “fascist” – at least not unless the target is a Republican (see below). Barack Obama is not a “dictator,” these would argue. He hasn’t launched the world into global war and he hasn’t murdered 6 million Jews (at least, he hasn’t yet). So he can’t be a “fascist.” This argument fails on two parts. First of all, by such a metric, Benito Mussolini wouldn’t be a “fascist” either (except for the “dictator” part). One of the reasons it is hard to have an easy definition of “fascist” is because fascism has taken a different character in every country and culture in which it has been embraced. Hitler is not the norm or standard of fascism; he is merely the most extreme example of its virulence and danger. Secondly, even if we were to take a Hitler as our example, let us realize that Adolf Hitler was a very cunning politician who managed to gain power in a Germany that was THE most sophisticated, educated and scientific nation and culture of its day. What I am asserting is that if an Adolf Hitler were to run for the presidency of the United States in 2012, he would run a platform that we could very easily label as “hope and change,” he would demagogue his adversaries as being the cause for the nation’s plight, he would lie both cynically and outrageously to win votes and he would then proceed to push the country as far as he possibly could toward his agenda. And so here, from the outset, I am claiming that the suggestion that either Barack Obama or anyone else does not qualify as a “fascist” simply because he or she can’t be directly compared to Adolf Hitler is nothing but a straw man.

The question thus becomes, what is fascism, and then it is what is Obama steering us toward?

THE WORD “fascism” is used broadly on the left as a term of abuse. Sometimes it is used to refer to any repressive government, whatever its political form. Most commonly on the left in the U.S., it is used to describe any Republican government–in particular, any Republican government or candidate on the eve of a presidential election.

As an experiment, I typed the words “Bush fascist” and then “Obama fascist” sans quotes. I got 3,280,000 Google hits for Bush fascist (and keep in mind an awful lot of hits would have vanished in the last 11 years as domains purged articles or simply ceased to exist) versus only 2,490,000 for Obama. That means liberals were over 45% more likely to call Bush a fascist than conservatives have been to call Obama one.

And when these liberals express their outrage that I would dare call Obama a fascist and thus lower the discourse, I invariably ask them just where the hell they were when their side was teeing off on Bush for eight unrelenting years of Bush derangement syndrome??? It was rare indeed to see a liberal excoriate his fellow liberals for demonizing the president of the United States.

That might only be a rhetorical argument, as two wrongs clearly don’t make a right. But it remains a powerful one. Liberals have forfeited any moral right to criticize conservatives for using their own tactics against them.

But I don’t simply call Obama a fascist because liberals called Bush one. I call him one because he has exhibited all kinds of fascistic tendencies, which I shall in time describe.

But fascism has a far more precise definition. Historically, fascism is a far-right movementof the middle classes (shopkeepers, professionals, civil servants) who are economically ruined by severe economic crisis and driven to “frenzy.”

In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky, fascism brings “to their feet those classes that are immediately above the working class and that are ever in dread of being forced down into its ranks; it organizes and militarizes them…and it directs them to the extirpation of proletarian organizations, from the most revolutionary to the most conservative.”

I have no doubt that the irony of these words were entirely lost to the “Socialist Worker” who wrote the article. But allow me to illuminate it for you: think of the most infamous fascists of all time, the Nazis. What did the word “Nazi” stand for? It was the “acronym for the ‘National Socialist German Workers Party’.” Let me try that again, just in case you missed these precious little details: “National SOCIALIST German WORKERS Party.”

But ask the “Socialist Workers” and they’ll assure you that the “Socialist Workers Party” had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Socialist Workers. Because that would certainly be awkward, wouldn’t it???

It is rather fascinating that “Socialist Worker” would cite as his authority on fascism and who should be labeled as a “fascist” the Marxist thinker . Allow me to provide one counter statement which is based not on the “brilliant words” of a Marxist, but on the plain simple facts:

“Part of the problem in recognizing fascism is the assumption that it is conservative. [Zeev] Sternhell has observed how study of the ideology has been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism.” Marxism defines fascism as its polar opposite. If Marxism is progressive, fascism is conservative. If Marxism is left wing, fascism is right wing. If Marxism champions the proletariat, fascism champions the bourgeoisie. If Marxism is socialist, fascism is capitalist.

The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

So depending on Leon Trotsky or any other Marxist-inspired academic who merely parrots “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” has rather serious intellectual drawbacks. And yet that is largely what we get. Far too many American academics wouldn’t be so obvious as to use the phrase, “In the brilliant words of Leon Trotsky,” but they give his ideas, theories and talking points total credence, nonetheless. The term “useful idiots” was literally coined to describe these Western “intellectuals.” And their being “useful idiots” is every bit as true today as it ever was in the past.

Consider the REAL “polar opposite”: American conservatives are capitalists, not socialists. They demand a limited national/federal government, not a massive centrally planned state as does socialism, communism and fascism. They prefer the federalist idea of powerful states’ rights against a weakened federal government, not some all-powerful Führer. And to try to force conservatives into some Nazi mold invariably means either creating straw men arguments or citing irrelevant facts (such as that conservatives favor a large military just like the Nazis did, as though virtually every single communist state does not similarly favor a large military “just like the Nazis did”). If you want an all-powerful national government that gets to decide who wins and who loses, if you want to see a system where you have to come to your government for assistance and resources with all manner of strings attached rather than being allowed to depend on yourself, your family and your community, you should embrace the political left, not the right.

By the way, another favorite idiotic red herring for liberals asserting that “Nazism was right wing” was that the Nazis hated the admittedly left wing communists. But consider the fact that Coke hates Pepsi and Barbie Doll makers hate Bratz Doll makers. Are we supposed to believe that Coke is the opposite of Pepsi as opposed to water, milk or orange juice? The fact of the matter is that Nazis and Soviet Communists hated each other because both movements had a global agenda of totalitarian dominion, and both movements were competing for the same rabidly left wing converts.

Pardon me for the following insult, but the only people who believe garbage arguments like these are ignorant fools who live in a world of straw men. Even if they have the title “PhD.” after their names.

The newborn communist republic under Vladimir Lenin proclaimed internationalism as its official ideology[4]. Russian nationalism was discouraged, as were any remnants of Imperial patriotism, such as wearing military awards received before Civil War….

The 1930s saw the evolution of the new concept of Soviet nationalism under Joseph Stalin, based on both Russian nationalism and communist internationalism. Official communist ideology always stated that Russia was the most progressive state, because it adopted socialism as its basis (which, according to the writings of Karl Marx, is the inevitable future of world socio-economic systems). Under Lenin, the USSR believed its duty to help other nations to arrange socialist revolutions (the concept of World Revolution), and made close ties with labor movements around the world[4].

[…]

The Soviet Union’s war against Nazi Germany became known as the Great Patriotic War, hearkening back to the previous use of the term in the Napoleonic Wars. The Soviet state called for Soviet citizens to defend the ‘Motherland’, a matrilineal term used to describe Russia in the past.

[…]

In 1944, the Soviet Union abandoned its communist anthem, The International, and adopted a new national anthem which citizens of the Soviet Union could identify with.

And then, with the victory secured over fascism, the Stalinist “national socialism” (a.k.a. “fascism”) suddenly became international socialism again. The Nazis’ very name was Nationalsozialistische.

One can be a “Marxist-fascist” and combine and blend elements of both totalitarian socialist systems quite easily, as both the Russian and then the Chinese communists proved. Communism and fascism have far more in common with one another than they have in opposition; especially when you examine the fact that both political systems invariably end up becoming the same big-government totalitarian police state.

So for my first two points – namely that 1) the left has routinely demagogically labeled the right “fascist” even when 2) it is clearly the left that owes far and away the most to fascistic elements – I am going to continue to shout from the rooftops who are the real fascists in America.

That said, it is still not enough to merely point out the FACT that American liberalism has much in common with fascism. And there is a lot more yet to say.

Before I begin spouting particular examples, I therefore need to further approach just what it is that would constitute a “fascist.” And then see who and how the label fits. From The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

The best example of a fascist economy is the regime of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. Holding that liberalism (by which he meant freedom and free markets) had “reached the end of its historical function,” Mussolini wrote: “To Fascism the world is not this material world, as it appears on the surface, where Man is an individual separated from all others and left to himself…. Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual.”

This collectivism is captured in the word fascism, which comes from the Latin fasces, meaning a bundle of rods with an axe in it. In economics, fascism was seen as a third way between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Fascist thought acknowledged the roles of private property and the profit motive as legitimate incentives for productivity—provided that they did not conflict with the interests of the state.

[…]

Mussolini’s fascism took another step at this time with the advent of the Corporative State, a supposedly pragmatic arrangement under which economic decisions were made by councils composed of workers and employers who represented trades and industries. By this device the presumed economic rivalry between employers and employees was to be resolved, preventing the class struggle from undermining the national struggle. In the Corporative State, for example, strikes would be illegal and labor disputes would be mediated by a state agency.

Theoretically, the fascist economy was to be guided by a complex network of employer, worker, and jointly run organizations representing crafts and industries at the local, provincial, and national levels. At the summit of this network was the National Council of Corporations. But although syndicalism and corporativism had a place in fascist ideology and were critical to building a consensus in support of the regime, the council did little to steer the economy. The real decisions were made by state agencies such as the Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (Istituto per la Ricosstruzione Industriale, or IRI), mediating among interest groups.

[…]

Mussolini also eliminated the ability of business to make independent decisions: the government controlled all prices and wages, and firms in any industry could be forced into a cartel when the majority voted for it. The well-connected heads of big business had a hand in making policy, but most smaller businessmen were effectively turned into state employees contending with corrupt bureaucracies. They acquiesced, hoping that the restrictions would be temporary. Land being fundamental to the nation, the fascist state regimented agriculture even more fully, dictating crops, breaking up farms, and threatening expropriation to enforce its commands.

Banking also came under extraordinary control. As Italy’s industrial and banking system sank under the weight of depression and regulation, and as unemployment rose, the government set up public works programs and took control over decisions about building and expanding factories. The government created the Istituto Mobiliare in 1931 to control credit, and the IRI later acquired all shares held by banks in industrial, agricultural, and real estate enterprises.

The image of a strong leader taking direct charge of an economy during hard times fascinated observers abroad. Italy was one of the places that Franklin Roosevelt looked to for ideas in 1933…

Fascism is all about the “community,” not the individual. Its message is about the good of the nation, or the people (or the Volk), or the community, rather than the good of a nation’s individual citizens. It is about distributing and then redistributing the wealth and returning it to “its rightful owners” under the guise of an all-powerful state rather than recognizing and rewarding individual achievement. In short, when Hillary Clinton explained that, “It takes a village,” an educated Nazi would have snapped his fingers and excitedly shouted, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!”

For Obama, the collectivism, community or “village” thing is such a profound part of him that he has literally made it an integral part of his very heretical form of “Christianity,” which very much stresses individual salvation and individual responsibility. Obama has on several occasions put it this way:

For example, in 1995, Obama said, “my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country…” and again in May of 2008, “our individual salvation depends of collective salvation.”

In the Christian faith, there is no such thing as collective salvation. Salvation is an individual choice. It is personal acceptance of Jesus as savior, Son of the living God.

Obama’s is a wildly perverted view of orthodox Christianity. It so distorts true Christianity at such a fundamental level, in fact, that one literally has to go to Hitler to find a suitable similar parallel from a “Christian” national leader. The great Protestant Reformer Martin Luther – the most famous German prior to Hitler – had written the most monumental text of German culture prior to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. It was called “The Bondage of the Will,” which was considered THE manifesto of the Reformation. According to Luther, the human will was in bondage to sin. The fallen will, if left to itself, will choose what is evil. The human will has been perversely set against the righteous will of God. For sinful human beings, the will is not in a state of liberty but is in bondage to its worst impulses. Luther wrote in this work, “When our liberty is lost we are compelled to serve sin: that is, we will sin and evil, we speak sin and evil, we do sin and evil.” Adolf Hitler infamously turned that key doctrine of Christianity on its head in his “The Triumph of the Will,” in which he exalted depraved human will to an altogether different level of human depravity. Which is to say that Hitler was so profoundly wrong that he proved Luther right.

But getting back to Obama’s profoundly anti-Christian concept of “collective salvation,” the Nazis would have been all over that, enthusiastically shouting their agreement, “Ja! JA! Das ist ES!” Recall the encyclopedia entry on fascism stating that, “Fascism affirms the State as the true reality of the individual,” which was then further defined as “collectivism.” And the Nazis repeatedly called upon loyal Germans to make horrendous sacrifices in the name of that collective.

What the Nazis pursued was a form of anti-capitalist anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or “people’s community.”

From the Nazi Party Platform:

– The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all Consequently we demand:

– In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

– We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

– We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

– We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

– We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation, immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts with the State, county or municipality.

– We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

– We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

– We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

– The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

– The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

– We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

– We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

Ah, yes, the Nazis had their “Fairness Doctrine” long before this current generation of liberals had theirs.

You read that Nazi Party Platform carefully, and you tell me if you see small government conservative Republicans or big government liberal Democrats written all over it.

Now, you read the Nazi Party Platform, and given what American liberals want and what American conservatism opposes, it is so obvious which party is “fascist” that it isn’t even silly. Then you ADD to that the fact that fascism and American progressivism (which is liberalism) were so similar that the great fascists of the age couldn’t tell the damn difference.

Since you point out Nazism was fascist, let’s look at some history as to WHO was recognized as fascist in America.

Fascism sought to eliminate class differences and to destroy/replace capitalism and laissez-faire economics.

H.G. Wells, a great admirer of FDR and an extremely close personal friend of his, was also a great progressive of his day. He summed it up this way in a major speech at Oxford to the YOUNG LIBERALS organization under the banner of “Liberal Fascism”: “I am asking for a Liberal Fascisti, for enlightened Nazis.” He said, “And do not let me leave you in the slightest doubt as to the scope and ambition of what I am putting before you” and then said:

These new organizations are not merely organizations for the spread of defined opinions…the days of that sort of amateurism are over – they are organizations to replace the dilatory indecisiveness of democracy. The world is sick of parliamentary politics…The Fascist Party, to the best of its ability, is Italy now. The Communist Party, to the best of its ability, is Russia. Obviously the Fascists of Liberalism must carry out a parallel ambition on still a vaster scale…They must begin as a disciplined sect, but must end as the sustaining organization of a reconstituted mankind.”

H.G. Wells pronounced FDR “the most effective transmitting instrument possible for the coming of the new world order.” And of course, we easily see that the new world order Wells wanted was a fascist one. In 1941, George Orwell concluded, “Much of what Wells has imagined and worked for is physically there in Nazi Germany.”

It was from the lips of liberal progressive H.G. Wells that Jonah Goldberg got the title of his book, Liberal Fascism. Goldberg didn’t just invent this connection: H.G. Wells flagrantly admitted it and George Orwell called him on it. All Goldberg did was rediscover history that liberals buried and have used every trick imaginable to keep buried.

And as a tie-in to our modern day, who more than Barack Obama has been more associated with said FDR?

But let me move on to some real red meat. In just what specific, concrete ways can I call Obama a fascist?

Well, to begin with, there is the signature achievement of his entire presidency, his national health care system (ObamaCare). For liberals, it is nothing but the most bizarre coincidence that Nazi culture had a national health care system that was quite rightly considered the wonder of its day by socialists in America. It is the most despicable of insults that Sarah Palin excoriated ObamaCare as “death panels” – even though it is more precisely a bureaucratic maze consisting of more like 160 separate death panels:

And the “czar” thing hits a very fascist nerve, too. Obama has appointed 39 czars who are completely outside our Constitutional process. Obama signed a budget bill into law that required him to remove these czars, but why would a fascist trouble himself with outmoded things like “laws”? One of the enraged Republicans responded, “The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy.” And of course, he’s right.

But why do I say it’s financial fascism in 20/20 hindsight? Because of what we just learned: in spite of all the bogus lying promises and the massive takeover “for our own good,” Obama didn’t fix anything. Instead he made it WORSE:

The financial system poses an even greater risk to taxpayers than before the crisis, according to analysts at Standard & Poor’s. The next rescue could be about a trillion dollars costlier, the credit rating agency warned.

S&P put policymakers on notice, saying there’s “at least a one-in-three” chance that the U.S. government may lose its coveted AAA credit rating. Various risks could lead the agency to downgrade the Treasury’s credit worthiness, including policymakers’ penchant for rescuing bankers and traders from their failures.

“The potential for further extraordinary official assistance to large players in the U.S. financial sector poses a negative risk to the government’s credit rating,” S&P said in its Monday report.

But, the agency’s analysts warned, “we believe the risks from the U.S. financial sector are higher than we considered them to be before 2008.”

Because of the increased risk, S&P forecasts the potential initial cost to taxpayers of the next crisis cleanup to approach 34 percent of the nation’s annual economic output, or gross domestic product. In 2007, the agency’s analysts estimated it could cost 26 percent of GDP.

Last year, U.S. output neared $14.7 trillion, according to the Commerce Department. By S&P’s estimate, that means taxpayers could be hit with $5 trillion in costs in the event of another financial collapse.

Experts said that while the cost estimate seems unusually high, there’s little dispute that when the next crisis hits, it will not be anticipated — and it will likely hurt the economy more than the last financial crisis.

So much for the massive and unprecedented fascist government takeover.

The inspector general in charge of overseeing the Treasury Department’s bank-bailout program says the massive endeavor could end up costing taxpayers almost $24 trillion in a worst-case scenario. That’s more than six times President Obama’s proposed $3.55 trillion budget for 2010.

Nobody here but us fascists. And we sure aint talking.

Then there are other issues that the left usually uses to attack conservatives, such as racism. Wasn’t Hitler a racist, just like conservatives? The problem is, the liberals are as usual upside-down here. After running as the man to create racial harmony, Barack Obama has instead done more to racially polarize America than any president since other famous progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR. Frankly, if one were to conduct a major study of racial politics, and the setting up in opposition of one racial group against another, just which party has emphasized race and race-baiting more?

Hitler’s Jew-baiting was all about the idea that one race had taken over the culture, had the money and the power, and was using its influence to oppress the people in the banking system and anywhere else that mattered. And Hitler’s constant screed was that Germany needed to confiscate the Jews’ wealth and then redistribute it. With all respect, all the left has done is replace “Jew” with “Caucasian” and making the exact same claims.

And with all this hard-core racist demagoguing, I’m supposed to say that, “Oh, yes, it’s the conservatives who are guilty of demagoguing race”??? Seriously???

Obama has Samantha Powers (the wife of Cass Sunstein, the man who “nudges us”) close to him and advising him on matters of war. According to the very liberal publication The Nation, “She began to see war as an instrument to achieving her liberal, even radical, values.” What if you had an ultra conservative – oh, say a Sarah Palin – openly acknowledged to pursue war and risk American lives to advance her radical values??? What would the left call this if not “fascist”?

But it’s only fascist if Republicans do it, of course.

Also in yesterday’s news is the fact that Obama is the perpetual demagogue– which is a quintessentially fascist tactic. Obama demonized Bush for trying to raise the debt ceiling until he needed to raise it. Now it would be un-American for Republicans to act the same exact way Obama acted. In the same demagogic spirit, Obama personally invited Paul Ryan to a speech just so he could personally demonize him. The same Obama who lectured Republicans that it would be counter-productive to rely on name-calling and accusations in the health care debate launched into a vicious demagogic attack. Ryan correctly said that “What we got yesterday was the opposite of what he said is necessary to fix this problem.” But that is par for the golf course for a fascist. If that wasn’t enough, Obama held a White House conference for “stake holders” in the immigration debate and refused to invite a single governor from a border state.

A Republican equivalent would have had to come out of a deep involvement with some vile racist militia organization to approximate Obama’s background. And liberals would rightly label such a politician a fascist for his past alone.

Here’s a recent Youtube video of Obama’s key union allies on camera saying, “We’re not going to rely on the law,” and, “Forget about the law” as they seek to impose their unions basically whether workers want them or not:

Glenn Beck’s program on Friday, September 24, 2010, was devoted to the subject of Adolf Hitler, Christianity, and the nightmare that ensues when big government seizes religion in order to legitimize, even divinize, its socialist and totalitarian policies.

I have written about this myself, mostly in responses to atheists who want to foist Adolf Hitler onto Christians and Christianity. I have grown up reading that Nazism represented the threat of a conservative, right wing government. It’s a giant load of bunk.

To put it briefly, the communist Soviet intellectuals – and all leftist Western intellectuals influenced by them – created a false dichotomy between fascism and communism. Zeev Sternhall observed how study of fascist ideology had been obscured by “the official Marxist interpretation of fascism” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 316]. Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative. If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing. If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie. If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist. And the fact that none of the above was even remotely true was entirely beside the point.

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. [And in fact, Both movements were “revolutionary socialist ideologies.” Going on,] Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty. [And finally,] Fascists saw themselves as being neither of the right nor the left. They believed that they constituted a third force synthesizing the best of both extremes” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

Jaroslav Krejci demonstrated the inadequacy of the “unilinear imagery” of left wing versus right wing. He pointed out that the metaphor derived from the seating arrangements of the French Parliament following the Revolution. Politically, those seated on the right side favored an absolute monarchy. Economically, they favored government monopolies and a controlled economy. Culturally, they favored authoritarian control of the people. Those seated on the left favored democracy, a free market economy, and personal liberty [see Krejci, “Introduction: Concepts of Right and Left,” in Neo-Fascism in Europe, 1991, pp. 1-2, 7].

Gene Edward Veith points out that these models simply break down in 20th century politics [see Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 27]. In terms of the model above, American conservatives who want less government and trust the free market would be on the left. Liberals who want more of a government-directed economy would be on the right. And so, while the Nazis would be “right wing” on this model, so also would the American liberal. Furthermore, the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are relative, depending upon what one has to conserve. The classical liberals of the 19th century, with their pursuit of free-market economics and resistance to government control, became the conservatives of the 20th century as they sought to conserve these principles.

And just what on earth do liberals who call Nazism a form of conservatism even think Hitler was trying to “conserve”?

Adolf Hitler was a violent revolutionary out to overthrow the current system and impose his own radically different system in its place. He was hardly a “right wing conservative” in any way, shape, or form. Rather, Adolf Hitler was, as Jonah Goldberg accurately described him in Liberal Fascism, a “man of the left.”

Were Hitler and Nazism among the greatest evils in the history of the world? Of course they were. But actually, Hitler and his Nazism were only the third worse mass murderer in all human history, behind Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao, who were both communist leaders of officially state atheist governments.

With that said, let us discuss Hitler and Nazism in terms of Christianity.

Did Adolf Hitler package some of his public remarks as “Christian”? There is no doubt that he did precisely that at different times his rise to power, and even during his regime. But that hardly means that Adolf Hitler was a Christian believer. Politicians often have had clear and obvious reasons to say things that they didn’t really believe for political expedience. And it is obvious on its face that Adolf Hitler was a liar and the worst demagogic political opportunist in human history, and that Nazism was utterly evil and based almost entirely on lies. Thus, to cite the propaganda of such a regime as evidence that Hitler or Nazism were somehow “Christian” is itself both sick and evil.

Germany had at one time been the seat of the Protestant Reformation. But by the late 19th century Christianity in Germany had devolved into a near meaningless official state religion. And Germany was the LEAST Christian nation in all of Europe. The most prominent German theologians embraced a form of theological liberalism that disconnected the foundational elements of Christianity from historical fact, in what amounted to a sustained attack on the Holy Bible. The school of “higher criticism” attempted to undercut traditional views about the authorship, composition and legitimacy of the Bible. This project weakened biblical authority by assuming that the Biblical text and the events described were to be explained entirely in naturalistic terms, and rejected completely the possibility of supernatural revelation. And it was almost entirely an undertaking of German scholarship (just look at the names: Eichhorn, De Wette, Wellhausen).

“…it would be illusory and dangerous to ignore the intimate bond which radically unites them (liberation theologies), and to accept elements of the Marxist analysis without recognizing its connections with the (Marxist) ideology, or to enter into the practice of the class-struggle and of its Marxist interpretation while failing to see the kind of totalitarian society to which this process slowly leads.”
— (Author: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, now Pope Benedict XVI; written in 1984)

Quote:

“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic.” — Pope Benedict XVI

And Hitler also packaged his hard-core of Nazism with a candy-coating of lies in order to fool the people. And the people were fooled indeed:

….Any opposition to Hitler is ruthlessly eradicated. Tens of thousands are imprisoned. Journalist Stephan Laurent dared to criticize The Fuehrer…..

“I am writing this from cell 24. Outside a new Germany is being created. Many millions are rejoicing. Hitler is promising everyone precisely what they want. I think when they wake to their sobering senses, they will find they have been led by the nose and duped by lies.”

Soon, the next wave of profoundly anti-Christian German scholarship took the next logical step in their attack against Judeo-Christian ideals which had stood for two millennium. Friedrich Delitzsch, a biblical scholar from the University of Berlin, published a work arguing that the Old Testament published a book arguing that the entire Old Testament was dependent upon Babylonian culture and mythology. Delitzsch concluded that:

“the Old Testament was full of deceptions of all kinds – a veritable hodge-podge of erroneous, incredible, undependable figures, including those of Biblical chronology…. in short, a book full of intentional and unintentional deceptions (in part, self-deceptions), a very dangerous book in the use of which the greatest care is necessary.”

But it soon becomes clear that the reason that Delitzsch believed the Old Testament was “a very dangerous book” was because it was Jewish, and Delitzsch was an anti-Semite first, and a scholar second. Delitzsch went so far as to argue the plain historical fraud that Jesus was not Jewish, arguing that there was some difference between “Jews” and “Galileans.” He also maintained an equally bogus distinction between Jesus as a warm humanitarian versus Jewish moral intolerance. Thus Delitzsch “de-Judaized” Christianity, and “contended that Christianity was an absolutely new religion, totally distinct from that of the Old Testament” [See Gene Edward Veith, Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 53-54].

And so it became an easy next-step for Nazi propagandists such as Ezra Pound (who is also known as the godfather of modernism) to state that the Jewish religion began when Moses, “having to keep a troublesome rabble in order, scared them by inventing a disagreeable bogie, which he called a god.” And Pound concluded “the greatest tyrannies have arisen from the dogma that the theos is one, or that there is a unity above the various strata of theos which imposes its will upon the substrata, and thence upon human individuals.”

And Adolf Hitler could then state in his Mein Kampf that:

“The objection may very well be raised that such phenomena in world history [the necessity of intolerance] arise for the most part from specifically Jewish modes of thought, in fact, that this type of intolerance and fanaticism positively embodies the Jewish nature” [Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 454].

The chain began by German scholars was complete: Hitler argued that it was okay to be intolerant of intolerant people, and that the Jews literally epitomized intolerance.

And none of this was “Christian”; it was a project straight from hell.

“Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, of privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion part excellence” [Nietzsche, “The Twilight of the Idols”].

And so, a good Nazi was a Gottglaubiger. Rather than putting “Christian” on personnel forms they wrote down “Gottlaubig” – representing a “vague pseudo-philosophical religiosity” – to indicate that, while they were not “godless communists,” they were most certainly not “Christian.”

So Hitler publicly said what he needed to say in speeches to deceive a mass population who had been bombarded with anti-Christian heresy and anti-Christian anti-Semitism, to bend them to his will. But to his inner circle he said very different things than what he said publicly. Hitler described to them that “after difficult inner struggles I had freed myself of my remaining childhood religious conceptions. I feel as refreshed now as a foal on a meadow” (Ernst Helmreich, “The German Churches Under Hitler,” p. 285).

What else did those closest in Hitler’s inner circle say about his “Christianity”?

“The Fuhrer is a man totally attuned to antiquity. He hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity. According to Schopenhauer, Christianity and syphilis have made humanity unhappy and unfree. What a difference between the benevolent, smiling Zeus and the pain-wracked, crucified Christ. The ancient peoples’ view of God was also much nobler and more humane than the Christians’. What a difference between a gloomy cathedral and a light, airy ancient temple. He describes life in ancient Rome: clarity, greatness, monumentality. The most wonderful republic in history. We would feel no disappointment, he believes, if we were now suddenly to be transported to this old, eternal city.”

Goebbels also notes in a diary entry in 1939 a conversation in which Hitler had “expressed his revulsion against Christianity. He wished that the time were ripe for him to be able to openly express that. Christianity had corrupted and infected the entire world of antiquity.” [Elke Frölich. 1997-2008. Die Tagebücher von Joseph Goebbels. Munich: K. G. Sauer. Teil I, v. 6, p. 272].

Hitler also said, “Our epoch will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.” [Hitler’s Table Talk, Enigma Books; 3rd edition October 1, 2000, p. 343].

Author Konrad Heiden quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.” [Heiden, Konrad A History of National Socialism, A.A. Knopf, 1935, p. 100].

Albert Speer – another Nazi who worked extremely closely with Hitler – reports in his memoirs of a similar statement made by Hitler:

“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?” [Albert Speer. 1971. Inside the Third Reich Translated by Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan. p 143; Reprinted in 1997. Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs. New York: Simon and Schuster. p. 96. ISBN 0-684-82949-5].

Adolf Hitler sounds like an atheist to me. Certainly, Hitler was absolutely not a Christian. He cynically used Christianity like he cynically used everything else that was good; he took ruthless advantage of it as simply another means by which to package his lies to the German people.

The fact of the matter is that Fascism and Nazism were quintessentially hostile to Christianity, and even to monotheism.

When convicted Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann went to the gallows, “He was in complete command of himself, nay, he was more; he was completely himself. Nothing could have demonstrated this more convincingly than the grotesque silliness of his last words. He began by stating emphatically that he was a Gottglaubiger, to express in common Nazi fashion that he was no Christian and did not believe in life after death” [p. 252].

One of the leading experts on fascism, Ernst Nolte, defined fascism as “the practical and violent resistance to transcendence” [Nolte, Three Faces of Fascism: Action Francaise, Italian Fascism, Nazi Fascism, 1965, p. 429]. Fascism was anti-God, anti-supernatural and anti-transcendence.

Gene Edward Veith says:

“It is particularly important to know, precisely, why the Nazis hated the Jews. Racism alone cannot explain the virulence of Nazi anti-Semitism. What did they see in the Jews that they thought was so inferior? What was the Jewish legacy that, in their mind, so poisoned Western culture? What were the Aryan ideals that the Nazis sought to restore, once the Jews and their influence were purged from Western culture?

The fascists aligned themselves not only against the Jews but against what the Jews contributed to Western civilization. A transcendent God, who reveals a transcendent moral law, was anathema to the fascists” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 13].

By killing the Jews, Hitler intended to kill the God of the Bible.

Of Protestant Christianity, Hitler wrote:

“Protestantism… combats with the greatest hostility any attempt to rescue the nation from the embrace of its most mortal enemy, since its attitude toward the Jews just happens to be more or less dogmatically established. Yet here we arefacing the question without whose solution all other attempts at a German reawakening or resurrection are and remain absolutely senseless and impossible” (Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 113).

Hitler talked about solving the “church problem” after he’d solved the “Jewish problem.” He said:

“The war is going to be over. The last great task of our age will be to solve the church problem. It is only then that the nation will be wholly secure” (Hitler’s Tabletalk, December 1941).

Hitler boasted that “I have six divisions of SS composed of men absolutely indifferent in matters of religion. It doesn’t prevent them from going to their deaths with serenity in their souls.”

Martin Bormann, head of the Party Chancellery and private secretary of the Fuhrer, said pointedly:

“National socialist and Christian concepts cannot be reconciled. The Christian churches build on the ignorance of people and are anxious so far as possible to preserve this ignorance in as large a part of the populace as possible; only in this way can the Christian churches retain their power. In contrast, national socialism rests on scientific foundations” (cited in Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, p. 303).

At a Nazi rally a speaker proclaimed: “Who was greater, Christ or Hitler? Christ had at the time of his death twelve apostles, who, however, did not even remain true to him. Hitler, however, today has a folk of 70 million behind him. We cannot tolerate that another organization [i.e., the church] is established alongside of us that has a different spirit than ours. We must crush it. National socialism in all earnestness says: I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

Nazism was pagan to its very core. Carl Jung (a onetime fascist sympathizer himself) described Nazism as the revival of Wotan, who had been suppressed by Christianity but now was released. Germany was being possessed by its archetypal god. (Odajnyk, Jung and Politics, p. 87-89). The Farmer’s Almanac of 1935, published by the Ministry of Agriculture, replaced the Christian holidays with commemoration days for Wotan and Thor. And Good Friday was replaced with a memorial for those killed by Charlemagne in his efforts to convert the Saxons.

In addition, at the very heart of the Nazi’s race programs and at the center of the Holocaust was the belief in atheistic Darwinian evolution. The principle rationale for the Holocaust was that the Jews were biologically inferior, and interfered with the Nazi scientists’ efforts to aid evolution by creating a master race.

Listen to these words and tell me who wrote them:

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

It was none other than Charles Darwin himself (Darwin, C.R., “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, 1874, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242). Charles Darwin literally predicted that someone would come along and extend his Darwinism to its logical conclusion – and thus literally predicted both the Holocaust AND the motivations FOR the Holocaust.

Charles Darwin spake as a prophet, and Adolf Hitler was the messiah who fulfilled the demonic prophecy.

“If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”

How is that not the World War II that Adolf Hitler started not being explained into a test of Darwinism that the German people had to pass to justify their existence? The simple FACT of the matter is this: that Adolf Hitler thought in entirely Darwinian terms. He decreed the Jew had failed the test of Darwinism, and believed that if the German people could not prevail in his war that THEY TOO should be exterminated.

Why is this so?

Gene Edward Veith points out that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection had implications far beyond biology. What must be true for nature must likewise be true for the individual and society. If nature progresses by competition, struggle, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then clearly all progress must come the same way (unless we are not part of the natural system, which would mean that we were the product of divine Creation). According to Zeev Sternhall, social Darwinism in Nazi Germany “stripped the human personality of its sacramental dignity. It made no distinction between the physical life and the social life, and conceived of the human condition in terms of an unceasing struggle, whose natural outcome was the survival of the fittest” [Sternhall, “Fascist Ideology,” in Fascism: A Reader’s Guide: Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography, p. 322].

Similarly, Sternhall pointed out how scientific positivism “felt the impact of social Darwinism, and underwent a profound change. In the latter half of the [19th]century its emphasis on deliberate and rational choice as the determining factor in human behavior gave way to new notions of heredity, race, and environment” [Sternhall, 322].

Nazism was also a direct attack against Christianity and Christian humanity.

Friedrich Nietzsche blamed Christianity, which he described as a creation of the Jews, for the denial of life that was represented in Christian morality. Gene Edward Veith points out that, in his attack on Judeo-Christian morality, Nietzsche:

“attacked the Christian value of love. Notions of compassion and mercy, he argued, favor the weak and the unfit, thereby breeding more weakness. Nature is less sentimental, but ultimately kinder, in allowing the weak to die off. The ideals of Christian benevolence cause the unfit to flourish, while those who are fit are burdened by guilt and are coerced by the moral system to serve those who are beneath them” [Veith, Modern Fascism, p. 82].

Nietzsche, epitomizing the spirit of Darwinism as applied to ethics, wrote:

We are deprived of strength when we feel pity … Pity makes suffering contagious…. Pity crosses the law of development, which is nature’s law of selection. It preserves what is right for destruction; it defends those who have been disinherited and condemned by life; and by the abundance of the failures of all kinds which it keeps alive, it gives life itself a gloomy and questionable aspect” [Nietzsche, “The Antichrist”].

In short, the Christian ethic of compassion is a kind of sentimentality that violates the laws of nature, in which the strong thrive and the weak die out.

“Justice is what the Aryan man deems just. Unjust is what he so deems” [Alfred Rosenberg, as quoted in Victor Farias, Heidegger and Nazism, 1989, pp. 205-206].

“Justice” for the Jew according to the Aryan mind possessed by Darwinism meant extermination as racially inferior and biological unfit to exist.

Thus, whatever you might want to say about whether Hitler was an atheist or not, his Nazism was inherently opposed to Judeo-Christianity, opposed to Judeo-Christian monotheism, and opposed to Judeo-Christian transcendent morality. The spirituality that resulted was intrinsically pagan, and inherently anti-Christ and anti-Christian.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

A 1954 Air Force Training Manuel had this commentary on these great words which founded the greatest nation in the history of the world:

“The idea uppermost in the minds of men who founded the United States was that each and every human being was important. They were convinced that the importance of the individual did not come from any grant of the state, that the importance of the individual did not come from any position that he had achieved nor from any power he had acquired nor from any wealth he had amassed.

“They knew that the importance of man came from the very source of his life. Because man was made in the image and likeness of God, he had a destiny to achieve. And because he had a destiny to achieve, he had the inalienable right and the inherent freedom to achieve it” (FTAF Manual 50-1).

Thus the question, “If God doesn’t exist, who issues rights to man?” becomes profoundly important. Because the answer is, “Whoever has the power to issue those rights.”

It becomes the State which issues rights to man. And, welcome to come and crush the human spirit, next dictator.

Postscript: you can go here to see how this question about who issues rights to man is becoming increasingly important right here in the USA.

“I think our young men and women overseas are fighting for exactly this,” Bloomberg said. “For the right of people to practice their religion and for government to not pick and choose which religions they support, which religions they don’t.”

It might be news to our soldiers that their real motivation for fighting overseas is so Muslims can build a giant mosque virtually on top of the site where Muslims murdered 3,000 Americans.

But the religion whose culture would murder a Christian for giving a Muslim a Bible – let alone building a Christian church near one of their hallowed locations – turns out to be quite judgmental, indeed.

The Taliban pounded on the door just before midnight, demanding that Aisha, 18, be punished for running away from her husband’s house. Her in-laws treated her like a slave, Aisha pleaded. They beat her. If she hadn’t run away, she would have died. Her judge, a local Taliban commander, was unmoved. Aisha’s brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.

Nihad says that Islam had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 (the terrorists were like Barney the Dinosaur worshipers, rather than Muslims), and that all Muslims were appalled by the destruction. The thing is, I remember it very differently. I remember that the name “Osama bin Laden” was so popular after bin Laden murdered 3,000 Americans and brought the Twin Towers down that many embarrassed Muslim countries banned it. And I remember footage from all over the world such as in the Palestinian territory and in Barcelona of Muslims literally cheering in the streets in celebration of the 9/11 attack.

So please don’t insult me by trying to tell me something so profoundly stupid that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11. I’m not that dumb.

9/11 was a religious act, committed in the name of Allah and Islam (which means submission, not “peace”).

And please don’t insult my intelligence with politically correct nonsense, suggesting that it is my “tolerance duty” to enable a Muslim shrine to be erected on top of an act of Muslim horror.

Let’s say – by way of analogy – that some Jewish group bombed the Dome of the Rock. Let’s say that, oh, ten years later, another Jewish group – saying that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the group that bombed the Dome of the Rock – wanted to build a temple there. You know, to advance the cause of understanding between Muslims and Jews. And let’s just say that the rabbi behind the project had made a number of incredibly controversial statements (more here), having been frequently caught saying one thing in Hebrew to Jewish audiences, and another thing in English for media consumption.

Do you think that would fly? Or do you think that the Muslim world would erupt in the greatest outrage the world had ever seen?

Would Nihad Awad or CAIR condemn as “bigoted” any Muslim who opposed that construction?

Anyone who says that Muslims would allow such construction is a liar, a fool, or, more likely, a lying fool.

Germany – which had experienced the bitter ultimate results of Nazism – banned the Nazis from their culture. They never wanted to experience that evil again. But our liberal progressives in the ACLU fought hard for the rights of Nazi groups to flourish here in America.

This isn’t about “tolerance.” It’s about political correctness.

Political correctness is not merely an attempt to be more inclusive or to make people feel better about themselves. It’s a large, coordinated effort to change Western culture as we know it by redefining it. Early Marxists implemented this tactic long ago and continue to execute it today — and now the American liberals who share the Marxist worldview are picking up the same tactic: to control the argument by controlling the “acceptable” language and hence the “acceptable” ideas and values. Those with radical agendas understand the game plan and are taking advantage of an oversensitive and frankly overly gullible public.

Radicals who want “fundamental transformation” push for anything that will destabilize the hated current system. They begin in revolutionary mode, inviting change, attacking the status quo. They are permissive, attacking established and transcendent authority, advocating total sexual freedom, and promoting radical artistic and cultural experimentation. But once they gain power, however, they are determined to defend the new status quo that they have created. The questioning of all authorities gives way to the supreme elevation of a new authority that must not be questioned. Permissiveness gives way to ruthless suppression. Subversion of order gives way to the imposition of a new order. And the previously “tolerant” revolution will systematically and ruthlessly suppress any “change” that “hopes” to overcome the big government totalitarian system they have imposed.

Both the Soviet communist (“Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics”) and the Nazis (“National SOCIALIST German Workers Party”) were socialist. Both came from the radical left. The only major difference between the two was that communism was an international socialist movement, whereas Nazism was a national socialist movement.

American liberals and progressives served as the useful idiots for communism – including Stalinism – just as they served as useful idiots for fascism – including Nazism. All one has to do is look at the 1920s and 30s, when Democrat progressives were cheering first Marxism and Joseph Stalin, then Italian fascism and Benito Mussolini, and, yes, Nazi fascism and Adolf Hitler. FDR‘s cabinet was filled with admiring bureaucrats who had gone to Germany and Russia and Italy to study the “marvelous developments” that were taking place in these planned societies.

What we are seeing is that it’s not “religion” that Democrat progressives hate per se; it’s orthodox Christianity, which has been the guiding force that shaped the American cultural history they now wish to “fundamentally transform.” And if these progressives can use Islam to undermine and supplant Christianity, they will do so. They will use Islam to attack the Christian hold on American culture. They will use anything at their disposal to burn Christianity out of American culture. So they can fill the vacuum with themselves and their poisonous ideology.

Christian conservatives [and Christians are conservative because our Messiah revealed Himself and His teachings two millennial ago, rather than a two-year election cycle ago] are “intolerant,” say Democrat progressives. “Just look at how they are treating these wonderful Muslims who merely want to build a mosque as close as possible to Ground Zero.” You don’t want intolerant – and therefore bigoted and evil – people like that leading America. Liberals then hold themselves up as morally superior to their “intolerant” conservative opponents, hoping that no one perceives enough to ask why liberals are so tolerant of Islamic fundamentalism but so profoundly intolerant of Christian conservatism.

That’s the real reason the ACLU fought for Nazism in the town of Skokie, where Nazi death camp survivors lived after fleeing the horror of Europe. And that’s why the ACLU is fighting for Islamic jihadism today. Because, as their founder said, “communism is the goal” – and anything that undermines the current Christian and free market system of America takes them closer to their cherished “goal.”

The problem with the ideological left trying to harness Islam to destroy the even more hated enemy Christianity is that the left don’t realize that they have a tiger by the tail. They have bought into their own rhetoric that they can satisfy Islamic jihadism by appeasing them (by serving them Israel on a platter, for example). But Islam is even more determined to have its way, and even more determined to employ whatever means are necessary – including catastrophic violence – to get it, than the socialist left.

In inviting Islamic fundamentalism to come into America and take root (as it is already doing in our “tolerant” prison system), it is as though the left are using a deadly plague to destroy their opponents, not realizing that they have no cure for the plague themselves.

As for the New York City Community Center, the Muslims certainly should be able to build their mosque (or community center, or whatever they want to call it). But they should build it elsewhere, rather than near the site of the worst Islamic terrorist attack in history. They should not be allowed to build a shrine commemorating their conquest of the Twin Towers.

If they are determined to build their “center” two blocks from Ground Zero, then they should be required to live up to their own disingenuous rhetoric: build a multicultural religious center that features a Jewish synagogue and a Christian church, such that men and women of all three monotheistic faiths may come and worship side-by-side together.

The fact of the matter is that they most certainly WON’T do the above. Which proves that their stated goals are lies, and that what this construction really is is a political act. If the “community center” is built, it will be a symbol of coming victory for radical Islam; it will be a demonstration that our enemies can violently bring our mightiest buildings down, and then erect mosques on top of their destruction. And we’re such weak, insipid, pathetic moral fools that we actually help them supplant us.

The Ground Zero mosque (I don’t care if the mainstream media won’t use the most accurate description anymore) is provocation. That is the entire idea: to suggest doing something despicable, and then point a finger at the American people over their “intolerant” reaction.

Meanwhile, the real insult to the American people is the giant hole where the World Trade Center used to be. Because there was a time when we were the sort of people who would have immediately built an even greater building there – and defied our enemies to knock that one down. Now we’re the sort of people who spend ten years twiddling our thumbs (both of which seem to be left thumbs) and listening to useful idiots lecture us.

Much the same way those ACLU attorneys lectured the Jewish Holocaust survivors living in Skokie, Illinois during the Jimmy Carter era.

President Barack Obama welcomed Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to the White House on Thursday, boasting that the two men have reset their countries’ relationship in a way unthinkable when Obama took office.

Russian media has been poking fun at US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after she gave her Russian counterpart a “reset” button with an ironic misspelling.Clinton’s gift to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at their meeting in Geneva on Friday evening was meant to underscore the Obama administration’s readiness to “to press the reset button” in ties with Moscow.

But instead of the Russian word for “reset” (perezagruzka) it featured a slightly different word meaning “overload” or “overcharged” (peregruzka).

Newsweek sure isn’t very impressed with Obama’s “reset.” They point out that it’s cost us a whole bunch while delivering virtually nothing beyond Obama being able to boast vacuously about a “reset”:

The problem, though, is that all this good will has been bought almost exclusively at Obama’s expense. The United States disappointed allies in Eastern Europe by scrapping plans to station missile-defense batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic, all in order to please Moscow. The Russian occupation of Georgia, America’s best friend in the former Soviet Union, has effectively been acknowledged as a fait accompli by Washington, again to please the Kremlin. At the same time, Washington has remained silent about increasing crackdowns on freedom of assembly inside Russia and the ongoing second trial of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

And what has Obama bought with all these diplomatic sacrifices? The list is pretty short.

Do you think that Ronald Reagan would have gone to Russia and honored Stalin’s “Great Patriotic War”?

That is part of the reason why Barack Obama isn’t worth one of Ronald Reagan’s toilet leavings.

What is hilarious in its sheer ironic patheticness is that just a day after Obama announces his “reset,” we find this report coming just minutes ago (as of Monday, June 28):

WASHINGTON — Ten Russian intelligence officers have been arrested in the U.S. for allegedly serving as illegal agents tasked with recruiting political sources and gathering information to send back to Moscow, the Justice Department said Monday.

Eight of 10 were arrested Sunday for allegedly carrying out long-term, “deep cover” assignments on behalf of Russia. Two others were arrested for allegedly participating in the same Russian intelligence program within the United States.

Ooops. Looks like Obama’s going to need yet a third “reset” with his former KGB buddy Vladimir Putin.

“Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something’ are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much,” Obama said. “Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms.”

Obama’s charge simply rests entirely upon his demagoguery. Essentially his implicit claim is that conservatives are anarchists who want no government whatsoever. We want gangs of hoodlums ranging the streets. We want looting and mayhem. We want a complete and total destruction of government, such that every man does what is right in his own eyes – or dies trying.

With all due respect (which amounts to none at all), bull crap. Anarchists are on the side of the left, not the right. Just as virtually every single terrible political philosophy that has ever existed have been on the side of the left, not the right.

Obama’s conclusion that if someone wants the government to do anything at all, he must therefore necessarily want everything that Obama is doing to massively increase the size of the government bureaucracy is so ridiculously stupid it is frankly hard to believe he’d make such an argument.

“If you want any government action at all, you must want want Big Brother.” I mean, please get real.

I can’t help but wonder if mega-government types like Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin described their enemies in the same terms. The charge would have been no more valid for them than it is for Obama. They, too, were proponents of huge government who were warring with those who favored less intrusive government. The argument would have been no more valid for these two leftist socialist tyrants than it is for Obama.

Furthermore, the right is doing nothing more than holding you to the same standard of blame that you personally helped heap on George Bush over Katrina five years ago. If you don’t like being hit with stones, you shouldn’t have started throwing them. Bottom line.

What conservatives and tea party activists want and always have wanted is responsible, limited government. We want the kind of government that is described in the American Constitution, rather than the Constitution of the U.S.S.R.

You’re right, Obama. We DON’T want you “trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government” as you’ve been trying to do from your first day in office. What we DO want – in your own words – is for you to “plug the damn hole.” And unless I’m somehow very mistaken, the two things are clearly not the same, are they???

Am I the only one who thinks that “ObamaCare” and “plug the damn hole” are different?

I can tell you one of the things I most certainly DON’T want my government to do: whine.

So when are you going to stop whining and actually DO YOUR DAMN JOB, Obama???

You were also the guy who promised that you would keep unemployment from rising over 8% if we enacted your massive porkulus that has completely failed. You were also the guy who promised that you could win Iran over and get them to halt their nuclear weapons program through your policy of what always amounted to appeasement. You were also the guy who promised that you would do a bang-up job winning the war in Afghanistan after demonizing your predecessor’s far more successful efforts.

And now you whine and whine when someone asks the legitimate question, “How’s all your over-the-top bullshit working out?”

You cry about people blaming you even as you systematically blame people who don’t have anywhere NEAR the blame that you have for this mess. YOU’RE the one who took more BP money than anyone else. YOU’RE the one who granted the permit for the drilling platform that exploded. YOU’RE the one who granted a bunch of environmental waivers for that platform before it exploded. YOU’RE the one who dithered for more than two weeks while a massive crisis unfolded. YOU’RE the one who didn’t employ the procedure that has been on the books since 1994. YOU’RE the one who has completely failed to do a damn meaningful thing at every single turn.

If you really want to blame somebody else, Mr. Obama, why don’t you blame the millions of abject fools who elected you when it should have been obvious to anyone with more than two functioning brain cells that you were clearly not up to the job???

At the very least, you’d finally be blaming the right people for a change.

On Friday May 27, at the White House Jewish Heritage Celebration, Helen Thomas, the “Dean” of the White House Press Corps, answered a journalist’s request for an opinion on Israel:

“Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it’s their land…not German and not Poland.”

“So, where should they go?”

“Go home. Poland, Germany.”

“So, you think the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?”

“And America and everywhere else.”

How is saying, “Tell all the Mexicans (whether legal or illegal) to get the hell out of America and go back to Mexico,” or, “Tell all the blacks to get the hell out of America and go back to Africa”???

And go back to Germany? Doesn’t Helen Thomas realize what she’s saying? “Go back to the country that only recently tried to exterminate your entire race as though they were vermin”? That event occurred within your lifetime, Helen. I mean, how dare you???

Helen Thomas: I’m a liberal, I was born a liberal, I’ll be one ’til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

I don’t know. Maybe “objective” would have been nice.

Being a liberal journalist basically means being a propagandist and an ideologue for the left, unfortunately. It also means thinking oneself an “intellectual” – the “privileged” intelligentsia class which alone has “access to the truth.”

Thomas Sowell described the destruction their kind has done:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished. Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

Nazism was always a creature and creation of the left. They didn’t call themselves the “National Socialist German Workers Party” for nothing. Nazism and Darwinian theory went hand in hand as the Nazis delved deep into American Progressive-born eugenics. Margaret Sanger – founder of Planned Parenthood and Nazi-sympathizer – strategically used abortion and birth control to weed out “racially inferior” peoples such as blacks and Jews.

“Frankly I had thought that at that time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of” — 7/2/09 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

It was Woodrow Wilson, “the father of the Progressive movement,” who RE-segregated the military, and who purged every single black from the federal government save a single “token negro.”

And now we’ve got Helen Thomas “on the record” being the useful idiot for the side of murder and totalitarian evil yet again – this time siding with the Islamic jihadist murderers who want to exterminate Israel and kill all the Jews just for being Jews.

Liberal progressives have done incredible damage throughout 20th century history; but they never seem to pay for it, because they’re the ones who get to “write the history.”

San Jose, CA (LifeNews.com) — Lila Rose has made a name for herself exposing the abuses at Planned Parenthood centers, such as staffers misleading women about abortion or hiding cases of sexual abuse. Rose became a victim herself Thursday morning as a Planned Parenthood staff member attacked her.

Late Thursday morning at the Planned Parenthood abortion facility located at 1691 The Alameda in San Jose, California, Rose led a group of pro-life advocates.

Rose tells LifeNews.com she was visiting the abortion center with a group of about 20 students and three adults to pray and provide information to women who might be open to abortion alternatives.

According to a police report filed at the scene and numerous witnesses, a uniformed Planned Parenthood escort engaged in a short exchange with Rose and eventually struck her on the hand, knocking her literature to the ground.

“Sir, are you familiar with the abortion procedure?” Rose asked the Planned Parenthood escort while standing on the public sidewalk.

The escort approached Rose from the Planned Parenthood parking lot and said, “You idiot. You’ve caused so much trouble. You piece of crap.”

Rose told LifeNews.com today: “The man appeared to recognize me though I had never met him. He knew who I was and I think that is part of the reason for his surprising anger and the attack.”

Rose offered to show the escort a picture of a baby victimized by abortion, saying, “Can I show you a picture of what it really does to a baby?”

At this point, the escort struck Rose’s hand knocking her pro-life pamphlets and Bible to the ground and Rose stepped further back on the public sidewalk.

The Planned Parenthood official moved closer to Rose and, visibly shaking, says, “It’s a woman’s choice!”

“What about the baby’s choice?” Rose responds.

The Planned Parenthood escort replied, “It’s not a baby!” and then turned around and walked away.

Rose, the president of Live Action, tells LifeNews.com that the police were called and interviewed her and several witnesses on the scene.

She says she was not injured by the attack but will press for charges of assault and battery.

“I attempted to speak with the escort and faced unexpected, intense anger and violent physical contact,” Rose told LifeNews.com. “I was concerned at the time that he would attack somebody more violently, and more do so next time.”

“Live Action maintains a strong commitment to non-violent public discourse. We expect Planned Parenthood will respond to their escort’s attack by publicly disavowing the use of violence,” Rose said.

However, Planned Parenthood has yet to comment on the incident.

Rose told LifeNews.com she’s not concerned about the attack in one sense because unborn children face worse.

“The attack against me cannot even begin to compare with the lethal attacks that take place twice a week at that same clinic against completely defenseless unborn children. I am thankful I live in a nation where my life is protected by law, and the lives of sidewalk counselors, and we will continue to fight for the day when our laws recognize our fellow unborn brothers and sisters as persons with the right to life,” she said.

Rose said she received good news this morning.

“A woman who thought she was pregnant and considering abortion, bound for Planned Parenthood , turned around, and one of the parents and their daughter at the clinic drove her and her friend to the criis pregnancy center,” she said.

‘She was crying and so happy because she said she wanted ‘a sign from God’ not to get an abortion. And the sidewalk counselors and students praying were her sign,” Rose concluded.

Again, bless you, Lila Rose. I thank God for you, and for what you are doing, and – now that I know who you are and what you are about – I will not forget to pray for your ministry and for your protection.

Let me ask one pertinent question. If “It’s not a baby,” as Planned Parenthood says, then why is it that men are called “fathers” and held legally responsible to provide support for “the children they fathered”?

If it was not a child immediately following his part in procreation, then upon what legal or moral basis can a man be held responsible as a “father”? After all, he didn’t father a “baby”; he merely fertilized a single-celled lump of goo. It didn’t “become” a baby until considerably after the fact – according to the abortionist reasoning – either after the baby was born, or after the mother decided to “choose” that it was a baby and therefore somehow wasn’t a lump of goo.

If a baby doesn’t actually become a baby until he or she is born, then on what possible basis do you hold the “father” responsible for something that happens 9 months after he had anything to do with anything? The only thing he cause was a non-human lump of goo, not a baby, right?

If your going to hold him responsible for the fact that a baby is born 9 months later as a result of something he had done 9 months previous, how can you not apply the same logic to the mother, and recognize that in 9 months time she will have a baby, so that she become responsible for that outcome of a baby in the same way a father is held responsible?

If a baby doesn’t become a baby until the “mother” decides that little boy or girl in her womb is a baby, then that’s her “choice” alone – and nobody but the woman who made that choice should be held accountable for it. Period. If she has all the “rights,” she should bear all the responsibilities for her “choice.”

The simple fact of the matter is that justice is dead. A baby is expected to forfeit his or her very life for the mere convenience and “choice” of a mother. And a father is expected to sit passively by while his own child is killed by being violently ripped apart after being dissolved – writhing in agony – by acid. Ah, unless the mother subjectively “chooses” that her baby really is a baby; in which case the father is compelled to provide support for that baby whether he wants to “choose” to do so or not.

You can understand why modern fathers are decried for being passive and uninvolved today. It is the legacy of abortion, which tells fathers that neither they nor their children have any real value. Given the twisted moral logic of abortion – which has permeated our culture – why should they care? The baby that he fathered is intrinsically without value apart from the completely subjective “choice” of the woman he once had sexual relations with. Why should he be any more involved with his “child” now than he was forced to be when all “choice” as a parent was taken away from him by our legal system in the first place?

There is a famous photo of a baby reaching out of the womb and grasping the finger of the surgeon (Dr. Joseph Bruner) who was in the midst of operating to alleviate the effects of spina bifida in that child.

The photo reflects something that is so profoundly human that it brings tears to my eyes every time I see it. This is the kind of creature that any human mother and father should do absolutely everything in their power to save and protect. To casually kill such an innocent little human being – that now lives because of a union of mother and father – is beyond monstrous.

Here’s a more recent photo of that same child – Samuel Armas – ten years later, proudly holding up his awards for swimming.

Amen, my young brother. You are as incommensurably priceless now as you were the day you famously reached out of your mother’s womb.

Now, since I am one who actually knows that that an innocent little baby in the womb is a developing human being conceived in the image of God, I know that every fatherbecomes afather from the moment he conceives a child. And therefore every father has a moral duty under God and under heaven to love, support, and protect his child – from the very sort of murderers who would rip his child apart in abortion. And I know that just as I also know that any mother who murders her own baby deserves hell for her crime.

And anyone who nods their assent to this monstrosity likewise deserves hell for advancing the cause of the greatest moral evil the world has ever seen. Fifty million human beings are dead in this country alone because of the systematic holocaust of abortion. People think that just because it’s legal, it must be okay. But Hitler’s death camps, Stalin’s purges, and Mao’s cultural revolution, were all perfectly legal in their day, too.

The Nazis had a slogan – Arbeit macht frei, meaning “work shall make you free,” which they posted above the gates of many of their death camps. Human beings were forced to worked until starvation and disease made them unable to continue working, and then they were euthanized in gas chambers, all because they were not deemed to have intrinsic value as human beings. Abortion and euthanasia were at the heart of Nazi ideology – to help along Darwinian selection and improve their “master race” by preventing or terminating “unfit” human beings – under a doctrine that they called lebensunwertes leben, or “life unworthy of life.”

In America, we have done something that is virtually as chilling from a different philosophy called “choice.” We demand “rights” that impose duties and burdens upon others – culminating in a baby’s duty to die for the sake of the “rights” of the mother. American abortion clinics should post their own, even more menacing phrase: tod macht frei, or “death shall make you free.” In America, the choice to abort is the choice to kill in the name of convenience and consumerism. Abortion clinics are modernized drive-through death camps. Walk in through the gate with a growing baby in your womb; walk out with your own child’s blood on your hands.